I stereotyped...and I was wrong. - Page 7

BarronVangorToth · #61 10-05-2005, 07:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You obviously didn't see what I've written. My opponent has KJ, AA, or a naked bluff. That, or they beat me. They are a tight passive opponent. They fold KQ on the flop. They don't checkraise AJ, AQ, QQ, etc. This is not debatable. KJ, AA, naked bluff, or I'm beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did read what you wrote, which is why I said that I did.

What you said doesn't make sense, which is why I had my question, and prefaced it by saying that I read what you already wrote.

That all said (again), I'm trying to figure out why you think your opponent is going to make a naked bluff with any two cards, and you find that a reasonable possibility, but you don't believe that those two cards can be any of the hands I said...?

He gets the flop and decides to make a check-raise bluff on the turn. Fine.

But he decides he can't do it with overcards...?

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Josh W · #62 10-05-2005, 08:02 PM

To clarify, I don't think my opponent will make a naked bluff raise. It's a possibility, but incredibly unlikely. It's just that a naked bluff is the third hand I can beat (behind AA and KJ). There are no other possibilities, likely or otherwise. (by "no other possibilities", well, it's an exaggeration. Those three possibilities are over 99% of the possibilities, though)

Josh

edit: Tight passive players with AJ don't wait til the turn to checkraise a J33 flop AND follow through with that checkraise when the worst card in the deck comes on the turn.

I seriously wonder if people here know what a "tight passive" opponent is anymore. Not just you Barron, everybody.

edit #2: Read my post "simplified" at the end of this thread. Threebetting the turn (or raising the river is WRONG). It's not a "it depends", it's WRONG. It isn't hugely -EV, like not a whole bet or anything, but it's wrong. Poker is rarely black or white, but in this situation, with this opponent, and my holding, threebetting the turn is black-and-white-wrong.

BarronVangorToth · #63 10-05-2005, 08:04 PM

That's fine that you think that is 99% of the scenarios.

I don't have a problem with that.

I have (or had, since you clarified that you don't think he'll bluff raise) that he would ONLY do so with non-KQ / AK / AJ / QQ hands.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Josh W · #64 10-05-2005, 08:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have (or had, since you clarified that you don't think he'll bluff raise) that he would ONLY do so with non-KQ / AK / AJ / QQ hands.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

You consider those hands naked bluffs?

One at a time...they won't checkraise AJ or QQ on the turn when THE WORST CARD IN THE DECK comes. Is your thought that a tight passive player will checkraise when the worst card comes off the deck? (sincere question that I'd like an answer to...)

They fold KQ on the flop. They threebet AK preflop. I'm fairly certain (only fairly, so probably 90-95% sure) of all of this.

j

Klepton · #65 10-05-2005, 08:21 PM

nh

BarronVangorToth · #66 10-05-2005, 10:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You consider those hands naked bluffs?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I said that it makes no sense that you would put them on a naked bluff but not have any of the hands that you would beat (KQ / AJ / Q's, etc etc). So this would mean they would call on the flop with 23o but fold KQo. Illogical.

[ QUOTE ]

One at a time...they won't checkraise AJ or QQ on the turn when THE WORST CARD IN THE DECK comes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said naked bluff, again, so you think they would bluff with absolutely nothing but not with a little something? OKay...

[ QUOTE ]
Is your thought that a tight passive player will checkraise when the worst card comes off the deck? (sincere question that I'd like an answer to...)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think they will naked-bluff you, how tight-passive are they? You can't have it both ways.

[ QUOTE ]

They fold KQ on the flop. They threebet AK preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine on the latter. Question on the former, still, as what are they calling with on the flop that will make them go for the naked-bluff: anything BUT KQo?

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Josh W · #67 10-06-2005, 12:01 AM

I have said, probably 4 times in this thread (and at least once in direct response to you) that I don't think that they'd naked bluff. I'm merely saying that it's a hand I beat.

I don't think they'd play a naked bluff here. THat should answer about all of your questions, and you now see that it's definitely wrong to threebet the turn. Phew.

Josh

mike l. · #68 10-06-2005, 12:42 AM

josh i love you but the initial post is poorly written and i think it doesnt get across what you were looking to get across. the sentiment just doesnt come through.

profiling players is a good thing. caring about whether theyll get steamed if you bad beat them is silly. raising with 32s as often as you do is unnecessary. 76s is one thing but 32s is no good. but you are killing the game right now and im not, so who am i to say?

anyway this thread sucked because the initial post sucked. well that's one of the reasons at least.

Josh W · #69 10-06-2005, 12:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]

profiling players is a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm only quoting one sentence of your post, but that doesn't make the others meaningless.

Profiling players is a good thing, but it should be based on stuff we've observed. I had never ever ever seen this person get out of line. They never said anything bad, never visibly steamed, nothing.

And yet, for some reason, I thought that they were a handgrenade waiting to explode because of race, gender, appeaarance, and topics of conversation.

If you (meaning "somebody", not "mike l.") want to take a poker lesson from this, I guess it would be "don't base decisions on info that isn't there".

If you want to take a life lesson from this, well...I hate cliches, especially those about books and covers and whatnot.

Josh

mike l. · #70 10-06-2005, 12:55 AM

"Profiling players is a good thing, but it should be based on stuff we've observed. I had never ever ever seen this person get out of line. They never said anything bad, never visibly steamed, nothing.

And yet, for some reason, I thought that they were a handgrenade waiting to explode because of race, gender, appeaarance, and topics of conversation."

josh im still not really getting what youre saying (maybe) because youre not being specific. i dont know what this means:

"I thought that they were a handgrenade waiting to explode because of race, gender, appeaarance, and topics of conversation."

could you explain?

thanks, mike